DOCSLIB.ORG

Cross-Linguistic Semantics of Reciprocals'

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cross-Linguistic Semantics of Reciprocals' Workshop 'Cross-linguistic semantics of reciprocals' Utrecht University, 7th-8th October 2019 On the 7th and 8th October 2020, the workshop 'Cross-linguistic semantics of reciprocals' took place at Utrecht University. The workshop was organized as part of the ERC-AdG project 'Forests and Trees: the Formal Semantics of Collective Categorization' (grant agreement No 742204). The workshop brought together typologists and formal semanticists, with the idea of gaining a clearer understanding of the cross-linguistic semantics of reciprocal expressions. This volume contains some of the papers that were presented during the event. We are grateful to the participants whose engagement contributed to a fruitful and enjoyable workshop. We also thank Charlotte Jonker, Imke Kruitwagen, and Sonya Nikiforova for their help with the organization. Giada Palmieri, Yoad Winter, Joost Zwarts Utrecht, May 2020 Table of content: Symmetrical and reciprocal constructions in Austronesian languages: the syntax-semantics-lexicon nterface…………………………………………………………………..1 Isabelle Bril (LACITO-CNRS, LABEX EFL) Groups vs. covers revisited: Evidence from symmetric readings of sentences with plurals…...17 Brian Buccola (Michigan State University), Jeremy Kuhn (Institut Jean-Nicod, ENS, EHESS, PSL, CNRS), David Nicolas (Institut Jean-Nicod, ENS, EHESS, PSL, CNRS) Reciprocity: Anaphora, scope, and quantification…………………………………………..……28 Dag Haug (University of Oslo), Mary Dalrymple (University of Oxford) Malagasy Reciprocals: Lexical and Syntactic……………………………………………….……29 Edward L. Keenan (UCLA), Baholisoa Ralalaoherivony (Université d’Antananarivo) Vagueness or ambiguity? On the reflexive and reciprocal interpretation of Italian si-constructions…………………………………………..……………………………………….…58 Giada Palmieri (Utrecht University) Reciprocal anaphors in singular constructions in Hungarian …………………………………..70 György Rákosi (University of Debrecen) A unified analysis of the semantic licensing conditions for huxiang in Chinese…………..……81 Shen Yuan (Fudan University) Symmetrical and reciprocal constructions in Austronesian languages: the syntax-semantics-lexicon interface. Isabelle Bril (LACITO-CNRS, LABEX EFL1) Abstract In Austronesian languages, reciprocal relations are most generally marked by productive and highly polysemous prefixes occurring in monoclausal constructions, not by reciprocal pronouns or reciprocal anaphors or quantifiers such as ‘each other’ or ‘one another’. These prefixes are reflexes of Proto-Austronesian *maR-/*paR- (Pawley & Reid 1979: 110), and of Proto-Oceanic *paRi- for languages of the Oceanic sub-branch (Pawley 1973). Not all Austronesian and Oceanic languages have retained these morphemes; some have innovated new markers (Bril 2005, Moyse-Faurie 2008). The focus here will be on languages that have retained these affixes in various Austronesian subgroups; the Amis (Formosan) and Nêlêmwa (New Caledonia) data were collected during fieldwork. 1. Introduction: polysemous affixes for plural and reciprocal relations The reciprocal affixes considered are reflexes of Proto-Austronesian (PAN) *maR-/*paR, which contain an infix <aR> (Sagart 1994: 275, Zeitoun 2002, Blust 2009) marking plurality of relations; this was inherited as Proto-Oceanic (POc) *paRi-. These prefixes basically express co-participation, collective actions and reciprocal relations as a sub-set of some general notion of union of plural relations (Pawley 1973, Lichtenberk 2000). These prefixes have become extremely polysemous (Lichtenberk 1985, 2000). In some languages (esp. Malayo-Polynesian and Oceanic), they have taken on Middle functions and developed various other meanings (intensive, iterative, dispersive, distributive, Bril 2005), these will not be detailed here. In the course of their evolution as Middle markers, these morphemes have come to denote self-directed actions in some languages,2 yet, these affixes are not originally reflexive morphemes, nor are they reconstructed as such in Proto- Austronesian or Proto-Oceanic. 1 This research is supported by the LACITO-CNRS and mostly financed by the research strand 3 “Typology and dynamics of linguistic systems” of the Labex EFL (Empirical Foundations of Linguistics) (ANR-10-LABX-0083/CGI). All the data on Nêlêmwa and Amis are from my own fieldwork. My gratitude goes to the informants and friends for their invaluable collaboration. 2 In various New Caledonian languages (Drehu, Ajië, Xârâcùù, Bwatoo, Cemuhî, see Bril 2005, Moyse- Faurie 2008), as well as Malay, Indonesian. But not in Amis, nor in Nêlêmwa. 1 There are in fact no reconstructed reflexive morpheme at PAN or POc levels. Reflexive meanings are expressed in various distinct ways: by intransitive verbs, by transitive verbs with coreferential pronominal arguments (as in Nêlêmwa), by nouns like tireng ‘body’ (Amis), by verbs like ‘return’ (Moyse-Faurie 2008), by modifiers such as ‘alone’ (Bril 2005), etc. The discussion will mostly focus on the reciprocal and collective meanings of these affixes, including some of their Middle functions, and their expression of dyadic kinship. Section 2 deals with their morphosyntactic features, section 3 with the distribution of affixes encoding reciprocal and plural relations; section 4 and 5 discuss the semantics of the various reciprocal affixes, including dyadic kinship. To conclude, several possible developments towards other Middle functions and meanings are outlined. 2. The morphosyntax of reciprocal and plural relations Two Austronesian languages go under some more detailed scrutiny in what follows; Amis is a Formosan language spoken in Taiwan, and Nêlêmwa is an Oceanic language of New Caledonia. Both have reciprocal, collective markers that are cognate with the reconstructed morphemes. The reflex of PAN *maR- in Amis is mal(a)-, which I analyse as the middle prefix ma- and the infix <aR> marking plurality of relations. In Nêlêmwa, the reflex of POc *paRi- is pe-. In Amis as in Nêlêmwa, there are few inherently reciprocal verbs, except Amis ma-ramud ‘marry’, ma-licinuwas ‘separate from each other’ (both exclude the reciprocal affix *mal(a)-); but verbs like Amis cabiq ‘compete’, taes ‘fight’ all take reciprocal affixes and constructions. Consider mal-cabiq ‘compete with each other’ (vs. mi-cabiq ‘want to be ahead’), mal-taes ‘fight with each other’ (vs. mi-taes ‘beat, flog s.o.’). In Nêlêmwa and in many Oceanic languages, verbs like ‘they meet, separate, compete, fight, kiss’ all carry reciprocal affixes. (1) Nêlêmwa (New Caledonia) a. Hli pe-ru-i. 3DU REC-find-R3 ‘They met.’ b. Hli pe-boima. 3DU REC-embrace4 ‘They hugged.’ 3 The circumfix pe-…-i is the reflex of POc *paRi-…-i denoting reciprocal, collective and iterative meanings (Pawley 1973: 152). 4 Abbreviations follow the Leipzig gloss rules ; additional ones are : AV actor voice; NM noun marker/article; PM personal marker/article; UV undergoer voice; -R reciprocal suffix (part of a the circumfix pe-…-i). 2 Reciprocal affixal strategies occur in monoclausal constructions, sometimes in combination with reduplication, as in Amis, but not in Nêlêmwa. Owing to the symmetrical relations between the agent and patient, reciprocals are generally low transitive constructions, often favouring the evolution of these prefixes towards middle markers, though rarely into reflexive markers; if they do, some additional and disambiguating morphemes usually occur (Bril 2005, Moyse-Faurie 2008). 2.1. Reciprocal constructions in Amis The two reciprocal prefixes in Amis are mal(a)- (from PAN *maR-), and ma-Ca- (i.e. the middle-voice marker ma-, together with obligatory Ca- reduplication). Their semantics are detailed in §4 and §5 below. Reciprocal constructions are intransitive (2a) or low transitive constructions with an oblique patient (2b). The reciprocal or collective subjects are expressed once. (2) Amis (Formosan) a. Mal-taes k-ira ta~tusa-ay. REC-fight NOM-DEIC CA~two-NMZ ‘Those (two) people are fighting with each other.’ b. Mal-alaw t-u titi k-ira wacu. REC-snatch OBL-NM meat NOM-DEIC dog ‘The dogs snatched the meat from each other.’ (nu Kiwit atu Piyuma a lalais.050) 2.2. Reciprocal constructions in Nêlêmwa In Nêlêmwa, the reciprocal prefix pe-, together with dual or plural subject pronouns, express restricted or extended reciprocity, without any reduplication. On the other hand, pe- is highly polysemous (Bril 2007); it is affixed to stative or active verb stems, and to derived event nominals (3b) and nouns. (3) Nêlêmwa (Bril 2002) a. Hla pe-whaayap. 3PL REC-fight ‘They fight with each other.’ b. .. na ni hleeli pe-whaayaw-i hla. LOC in those REC-fight-DET 3PL ‘… during their mutual fight.’ (lit. in those mutual fights of theirs) Reciprocal constructions can be (i) ‘light’ constructions as in (4a), with an intransitive verb, one absolutive argument denoting co-participants engaged in some reciprocal relation, or (ii) ‘heavy’ constructions as in (4b) with a transitive verb, but two coreferential subject and object pronouns. The heavy construction denotes more strongly and symmetrically reciprocal relations, it may denote pluractional reciprocal events. 3 (4) a. Hla pe-taxu agu. 3PL REC-give.INTR people.ABS ‘The people are in exchange relationship.’ (Bril 2007) b. Hla pe-taxi-hla (o hnoot). 3PL REC-give.TR-3PL OBL riches ‘They give each other (riches).’ (lit. with riches). The ‘light’ intransitive construction also has Middle semantics (see Bril 2007). In many Oceanic languages, strict reciprocal relations tend to be expressed by ‘heavy’ constructions with the prefix and two coreferential pronominal arguments,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Ingredients of Reciprocity in Cuzco Quechua
    Accepted for publication in the Journal of Semantics, pre-final version, February 2007. 1 The ingredients of reciprocity in Cuzco Quechua Martina Faller The University of Manchester Abstract In Cuzco Quechua reciprocity is marked by means of two verbal suffixes, one of which is a marker of reflexivity, the other of which is a marker of pluractionality. The paper develops an analysis that composes reciprocity from these more basic notions. Two further ingredients that are needed will be argued to derive from independent principles: universal quantifi- cation over parts of the reciprocal plural agent derives from plural pred- ication, as has been argued by other researchers for English reciprocity; distinctness of the participants in the reciprocal subevents derives from a semantic version of Condition B. This way of composing reciprocity is not universal, other languages have dedicated reciprocal markers or make other reciprocal ingredients overt. The compositional derivation of reciprocity is therefore a clear candidate for cross-linguistic semantic variation. 1 Introduction This paper develops a compositional analysis of reciprocity in Cuzco Quechua (CQ) with the aim of elucidating the question of how languages may differ in the compositional derivation of this complex semantic notion. In a wider sense, it is a contribution to the growing literature on the possible space of cross-linguistic semantic variation. Consider the following Quechua reciprocal sentence and its English translation. (1) Hayt’a-na-ku-n-ku. kick-pa-refl-3-pl ‘They kick each other.’ Both entail that there are at least two kicking events, that the agent and the theme of each kicking event are distinct but drawn from the same group con- sisting of at least two members (namely the group denoted by they, which serves as the antecedent for the pronominal each other), and that each of the members of this group is an agent of at least one of these events and a theme of at least another one.
    [Show full text]
  • The Syntax of the Malagasy Reciprocal Construction: an Lfg Account
    THE SYNTAX OF THE MALAGASY RECIPROCAL CONSTRUCTION: AN LFG ACCOUNT Peter Hurst University of Melbourne Proceedings of the LFG06 Conference Universität Konstanz Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (Editors) 2006 CSLI Publications http://csli-publications.stanford.edu/ ABSTRACT The verbal reciprocal construction in Malagasy is formed by a reciprocal morpheme prefixing on the main verb with a corresponding loss of an overt argument in c-structure. Analyses of similar constructions in Chichewa and Catalan both treat the reciprocalized verb's argument structure as undergoing an alteration whereby one of its thematic roles is either suppressed or two thematic arguments are mapped to one grammatical function. In this paper I propose that the reciprocal morpheme in Malagasy creates a reciprocal pronoun in f-structure - thus maintaining its valency and leaving the argument structure of the verb unchanged, while at the same time losing an argument at the level of c-structure. 1. INTRODUCTION Malagasy is an Austronesian language and is the dominant language of Madagascar. The Malagasy sentences used in the analysis below are from the literature - in particular from a paper by Keenan and Razafimamonjy (2001) titled “Reciprocals in Malagasy” whose examples are based on the official dialect of Malagasy as spoken in and around the capital city Antananarivo. The Malagasy reciprocal construction is formed by the addition of a prefix -if- or -ifamp- to the stem of the verb accompanied by the loss of an overt argument in object position. Compare sentence (1a) below with its reciprocated equivalent (1b): (1) Malagasy a. N-an-daka an-dRabe Rakoto pst-act-kick acc.Rabe Rakoto V O S 'Rakoto kicked Rabe' b.
    [Show full text]
  • A Backwards Binding Construction in Zapotec
    Work Papers of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, University of North Dakota Session Volume 40 Article 1 1996 A backwards binding construction in Zapotec Cheryl A. Black SIL-UND Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.und.edu/sil-work-papers Part of the Linguistics Commons Recommended Citation Black, Cheryl A. (1996) "A backwards binding construction in Zapotec," Work Papers of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, University of North Dakota Session: Vol. 40 , Article 1. DOI: 10.31356/silwp.vol40.01 Available at: https://commons.und.edu/sil-work-papers/vol40/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UND Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Work Papers of the Summer Institute of Linguistics, University of North Dakota Session by an authorized editor of UND Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A Backwards Binding Construction in Zapotec* Cheryl A. Black Many of the Zapotecan languages have a unique way of signalling coreference between the subject and the possessor of the object: the subject is null. Such a construction is upsidedown or backwards from commonly described anaphora con­ structions and its analysis is therefore problematic to current theories. This paper describes the construction and underlines the theoretical problem by arguing against any obvious alternative analyses. An analysis is proposed where it is the tail {rather than the head) of the chain of coreferent elements that is identified, suggesting that this is another place where parameterization is needed. 1. Introduction One part of Binding Theory deals with simple refl.exive constructions, such as (1) (where coindexing indicates coreference).
    [Show full text]
  • Further Remarks on Reciprocal Constructions (To Appear In: Nedjalkov, Vladimir P
    1 Further remarks on reciprocal constructions (to appear in: Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. (ed.) 2007. Reciprocal constructions. Amsterdam: Benjamins.) MARTIN HASPELMATH In view of the breathtaking scope of the comparative research enterprise led by Vladimir P. Nedjalkov whose results are published in these volumes, I have no choice but to select and highlight a few topics that I find particularly interesting and worthy of further comment and further study. I will focus here on conceptual and terminological issues and on some phenomena that have been discussed in the literature but are not so well represented in this work. I will also try to summarize some of the major known generalizations about reciprocals, as discussed in this work and elsewhere, in the form of twenty-six Greenberg-style numbered universals. 1. Reciprocal, mutual, symmetric Let us begin with a terminological discussion of the most basic term, reciprocal. In the present volumes, this term is used both for meanings (e.g. reciprocal situation, reciprocal event) and for forms (e.g. reciprocal construction, reciprocal marker, reciprocal predicate). In most cases, the context will disambiguate, but it seems to be a good idea to have two different terms for meanings and for forms, analogous to similar contrasts such as proposition/sentence, question/interrogative, participant/argument, time/tense, multiple/plural. Since all reciprocals express a situation with a mutual relation, I propose the term mutual for the semantic plane, reserving the term reciprocal for specialized expression patterns that code a mutual situation. A similar terminological distinction is made by König & Kokutani (2006), Evans (2007), Dimitriadis (2007), but these authors propose the term symmetric for meanings, reserving reciprocal for forms.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Reciprocal in Ndebele Langa KHUMALO 1 University of Kwazulu-Natal, South Africa
    Nordic Journal of African Studies 23(3): 140–161 (2014) On the Reciprocal in Ndebele Langa KHUMALO 1 University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa ABSTRACT This article presents an analysis of the reciprocal extension in the Ndebele language (S.44, ISO 639-3 nde; not to be confused with South African Ndebele, S.407, ISO 639-3nbl) using the apparatus of the Lexical Functional Grammar’s Lexical Mapping Theory. The reciprocal in Ndebele, like in most Bantu languages, is clearly marked by the verbal suffix an-. Its typical properties are that the subject NP must be plural or alternatively must be a coordinate structure and that it is an argument changing verbal extension. This article will demonstrate that in Ndebele the reciprocal verb can take the direct object. It will further show that the reciprocal in Ndebele can co-occur with the passive and finally the paper will show that the notion of transitivity is not so straightforward both at syntactic and semantic levels when viewed in the context of certain reciprocal constructions. Keywords : reciprocal, argument structure, LMT, dyadic and monadic reciprocal. 1. INTRODUCTION This article discusses the Ndebele reciprocal derivation using the Lexical Mapping Theory (henceforth LMT), which is a sub-theory of Lexical Functional Grammar (henceforth LFG). It is important to note that LFG owes its origins from the dissatisfaction with Chomsky’s early framework of linguistic analysis as espoused in the Principles and Parameter framework and Government and Binding Theory. LFG has been described as the non-transformational successor to the transformational generative forerunners of Government and Binding.
    [Show full text]
  • Even (Malchukov).Pdf
    Even Andrei L. Malchukov LANGUAGES OF TilE WORLD/Malerials \2 1995 LINCOM EUROPA Miinchen - Newcastle Published by LlNCOM EUROPA. Munchen. Newcaslle. 1995. All correspondence concerning LANGUAGES OF THE WORLD/Materials should be addressed to: LlNCOM EUROPA. P.O. Box 1316. D-85703 Unterschleissheim/Munchen. Germany. All rights reserved . including the righlS of translation into any foreign language. No part of this book may be reproduced in any way without the permission of the publisher. Printed in Nurnberg. Germany Edited by U.J. Uiders Scientific Advisory Board of L1NGUAGES OF THE WORLD/Materials (LW/M); W. Bisang, M. Brenzi nger , F. Corricmc, R.M.W. Dixon. W.Foley, J. Goddard. N. Himmelmann, A.E. Kibrik. L. Johanson. A.S. Kaye, M. Mithun, U. Mosel, J. Owens. G. Sommer, H.E. Wolff. Die DeUlsche BibliOlhek - CIP-Einheitsaufnahme Malchukov, Andrej L.: Even I Andrej L. Malchukov. - MOnchen (i.e. ) Unterschleissheim; Newcastle : LlNCOM EUROPA, 1995 . (Languages of the world: Materials; 12) ISBN 3-929075-13-X British Library Cataloguing in PublicaJion Dala A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Printed on ch lorine·free paper CU lltellls O. Foreword. .......................... .... ...................... ................ .. ............. 3 PART I: Essemials of Even grammar ..... ........................... .. ............................. 3 I. Gener.tl data on Even ..... .............. ....................... .................... .............. 3 1. 1. General socio- and geo·linguistic infonnation ...........
    [Show full text]
  • UC Berkeley Dissertations, Department of Linguistics
    UC Berkeley Dissertations, Department of Linguistics Title Runyambo Verb Extensions and Constructions on Predicate Structure Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1xp5453s Author Rugemalira, Josephat Publication Date 1993 eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Runyambo Verb Extensions and Constraints on Predicate Structure by Josephat Muhozi Rugemalira B .A. (University of Dar es Salaam) 1984 M.A. (University of Lancaster) 1986 M.A. (University of California at Berkeley) 1991 A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics in the GRADUATE DIVISION of the UNIVERSITY Of CALIFORNIA at BERKELEY Committee in charge: Professor Charles J. Fillmore, Chair Professor Sam A. Mchombo Professor Johanna B. Nichols Professor Larry M. Hyman 1993 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. The dissertation of Josephat Muhozi Rugemalira is approved: /iW ^ tqq \ Date __________ a/st; % /f fj v' ;---- Dat'e s---- L ---- _ \ / ) FvV <Lr.X--°1 KiCv . A- , 199 5 J . Date (A t!M fC^I* lyt^SL IjVOUJLo / U o o ■ / f i V S University of California at Berkeley 1993 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ABSTRACT RUNYAMBO VERB EXTENSIONS AND CONSTRAINTS ON PREDICATE STRUCTURE by Josephat Muhozi Rugemalira Doctor of Philosophy in Linguistics University of California at Berkeley Professor Charles J. Fillmore, Chair This study presents a description of the productive verb extensions in Runyambo, a Bantu language of Tanzania. It challenges the common view that the extensions are potentially a resource for increasing the number of a verb's arguments indefinitely, and shows instead that the extensions form part of a set of interrelated mechanisms, within the Bantu languages, which ensure that the arguments of a verb remain distinguishable from each other.
    [Show full text]
  • Looking Into Reduplication in Indonesian
    Double Double, Morphology and Trouble: Looking into Reduplication in Indonesian Meladel Mistica, Avery Andrews, I Wayan Arka Timothy Baldwin The Australian National University The University of Melbourne {meladel.mistica,avery.andrews, [email protected] wayan.arka}@anu.edu.au Abstract tronic grammar for Indonesian within the framework of Lexical Functional Grammar (LFG). Our project This paper investigates reduplication in In- forms part of a group of researchers, PARGRAM1 donesian. In particular, we focus on verb redu- whose aim is to also produce wide-coverage gram- plication that has the agentive voice affix meN, exhibiting a homorganic nasal. We outline the mars built on a collaboratively agreed upon set of recent changes we have made to the imple- grammatical features (Butt et al., 1999). In order mentation of our Indonesian grammar, and the to ensure comparability we use the same linguistic motivation for such changes. tools for implementation.2 There are two main issues that we deal with One of the issues we address is how to adequately in our implementation: how we account for account for morphophonemic facts, as schematised the morphophonemic facts relating to sound in Examples (1), (2) and (3): changes in the morpheme; and how we con- ∧ struct word formation (i.e. sublexical) rules in (1) [meN+tarik] 2 creating these derived words exhibiting redu- ↔ meN+tarik+hyphen+meN+tarik plication. ↔ menarik-menarik “pulling (iteratively)” 1 Introduction ∧ (2) meN+[tarik] 2 This study looks at full reduplication in Indone- ↔ meN+tarik+hyphen+tarik sian verbs, which is a morphological operation that ↔ menarik-narik (*menarik-tarik) involves the doubling of a lexical stem.
    [Show full text]
  • Reflexive and Reciprocal Encoding in the Australian Mixed
    languages Article Reflexive and Reciprocal Encoding in the Australian Mixed Language, Light Warlpiri Carmel O’Shannessy 1,* and Connor Brown 2 1 School of Literature, Languages and Linguistics, College of Arts and Social Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2600, Australia 2 School of Social Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Perth, WA 6009, Australia; [email protected] * Correspondence: Carmel.O’[email protected] Abstract: Mixed languages combine significant amounts of grammatical and lexical material from more than one source language in systematic ways. The Australian mixed language, Light Warlpiri, combines nominal morphology from Warlpiri with verbal morphology from Kriol (an English-lexified Creole) and English, with innovations. The source languages of Light Warlpiri differ in how they encode reflexives and reciprocals—Warlpiri uses an auxiliary clitic for both reflexive and reciprocal expression, while English and Kriol both use pronominal forms, and largely have separate forms for reflexives and reciprocals. English distinguishes person and number in reflexives, but not in reciprocals; the other source languages do not distinguish person or number. This study draws on naturalistic and elicited production data to examine how reflexive and reciprocal events are encoded in Light Warlpiri. The study finds that Light Warlpiri combines near-maximal distinctions from the source languages, but in a way that is not a mirror of any. It retains the person and number distinctions of English reflexives and extends them to reciprocals, using the same forms for Citation: O’Shannessy, Carmel, and reflexives and reciprocals (like Warlpiri). Reflexives and reciprocals occur within a verbal structure Connor Brown.
    [Show full text]
  • Encoding Definiteness on Pronominal Objects in Mordvinic
    Mariann Bernhardt University of Turku Encoding definiteness on pronominal objects in Mordvinic This article examines the morphosyntax of pronouns in object function and reveals the syntactic and morphological differences between nominal and pronominal objects in Mordvinic. The variation in case marking and declen- sion type of nominal objects is affected by definiteness. Indefinite objects are in the basic declension nominative, whereas definite ones are in the definite or possessive declension genitive. Furthermore, definite objects may be in- dexed on the verb. In this paper, I analyze the morphosyntax of pronouns, in order to reveal the regularities between semantics and morphological mark- ing and to provide a better understanding of definiteness. For this purpose, the finite forms of perception verbs were collected from the MokshEr corpus, which contains written texts in the literary languages, and native speakers were consulted on the results. Perception verbs were chosen for this study be- cause they agree with the object in person and number more frequently than other semantic classes of verbs, thus providing good material for examining the correlation of definiteness with verbal conjugation. The paper shows how definiteness is displayed within the morphosyntax of pronouns and uncovers how verbal conjugation correlates with different pronominal objects. 1. Introduction 4.2. Demonstrative pronouns 2. Background 4.3. Reflexive pronouns 3. Data 4.3.1. Erzya 4. The pronominal objects of 4.3.2. Moksha perception verbs 4.4. Reciprocal pronouns 4.1. Personal pronouns and other 4.5. Interrogative pronouns person indexes 4.6. Relative pronouns 4.1.1. Indexing object person 4.7. Indefinite pronouns with verbs in the subjective 4.8.
    [Show full text]
  • The Antisymmetry of Syntax
    Contents Series Foreword xi Preface xiii Acknowledgments xvii Chapter 1 Introduction 3 1.1 Introduction 3 1.2 Proposal 5 Chapter 2 Deriving XBar lhory 7 PART 11 13 Chapter 3 Adjunction 15 3.1 Segments and Categories 15 3.2 Adjunction to a Head 17 3.3 Multiple Adjunctions: Clitics 19 3.4 Multiple Adjunctions: Nonheads 21 3.5 Specifiers 22 ... Vlll Contents Contents 3.6 Verb-Second Effects 27 Chapter 6 3.7 Adjunction of a Head to a Nonhead 30 Coordination 57 6.1 More on Coordination 57 Chapter 4 6.2 Coordination of Heads, Wordorder 33 4.1 The specifier-complement including Clitics 59 Asymmetry 33 6.3 Coordination with With 63 4.2 Specifier-Head-Complement as a Universal Order 35 6.4 Right Node Raising 67 4.3 Time and the Universal Chapter 7 -- Specifier-Head-Complement Order Complementation 69 7.1 Multiple Complements and 36 Adjuncts 69 4.4. Linear Order and Adjunction to 7.2 Heavy NP Shift 71 Heads 38 7.3 Right-Dislocations 78 4.5 Linear Order and Structure below the Word Level 38 Relatives and Posseshes 85 8.1 Postnominal Possessives in 4.6 The Adjunction Site of Clitics English 85 42 8.2 Relative Clauses in English 86 Chapter 5 Fortherconsequences 47 5.1 There Is No Directionality 8.3 N-Final Relative Clauses 92 Parameter 47 8.4 Reduced Relatives and 5.2 The LCA Applies to All Syntactic Representations 48 Adjectives 97 8.5 More on Possessives 101 I 5.3 Agreement in Adpositional Phrases 49 1 8.6 More on French De 105 b 5.4 Head Movement 50 8.7 Nonrestrictive Relatives 1 10 5.5 Final Complementizers and Agglutination 52 ..
    [Show full text]
  • An Investigation of the Syntactic, Semantic and Pragmatic Interfaces
    Reciprocity in Russian: An investigation of the syntactic, semantic and pragmatic interfaces DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Lauren Ressue Graduate Program in Slavic and East European Languages and Cultures The Ohio State University 2015 Dissertation Committee: Andrea Sims, Advisor Judith Tonhauser, Advisor Daniel Collins 1 Copyright By Lauren Ressue 2015 2 Abstract This dissertation explores two reciprocal expressions in Russian, drug druga and reciprocal -sja verbs to determine their distribution, semantics and pragmatics. I argue that while these two expressions are similar in many ways, they also differ in subtle ways not before discussed. While the empirical foundations of this dissertation are data from Russian, my findings have empirical and theoretical consequences for both the formal semantic and the typological literature on reciprocity. In English, the reciprocal expression each other has been studied in detail to explore the relations between participants it is compatible with (Langendoen 1978, Dalrymple et al. 1998b, Beck 2001). For example, the sentence in (i) is compatible with either of the relations depicted in (a) and (b), where the arrows represent a binary painting relation. (i) The four artists painted each other. (a) (b) In this dissertation, I explore the meaning of reciprocal expressions in Russian to discover whether these expressions have the same meaning as each other and whether they contribute any ii meaning other than relations between individuals. My data comes from both a corpus study utilizing the Russian National Corpus and elicitation with native speakers of Russian.
    [Show full text]